Confused on the "Evolution" concept?

I know we don't believe in evolution... but I was wondering (since it's soo hard to disprove evolution, and also yet prove it) about many general questions. Apparently I don't know enough of evolution to be able to defend our faith -which I am thankful to God for he gives all things within his will and in due time. All we look like to them [evolutionists] is crazy fanatics, that have no science based backround. I was watching videos on youtube to keep what I said to my friend that to be a true sciencist you need to look at both sides without a bias. Unfortuneately I have many bias's against evolution but not for the science-based evidence against it -like a true sciencist would do, except it won't be a "bias", but rather for my anger and hate in the fact that I can't defend against it. For examples their: fossel records; bacteria; many more which i will bring up in this discussion.

Yes we do and no we don't haha. Theres macroevolution and microevolution; we believe in microevolution, which is evolution within a species, such as humans losing their use of vestigial organs, such as the appendix, wisdom teeth, and tailbone. We do not believe that humans evolved from monkeys, which would be macroevolution.

[quote author=SilentOne link=topic=8878.msg111198#msg111198 date=1267119225]Yes we do and no we don't haha. Theres macroevolution and microevolution; we believe in microevolution, which is evolution within a species, such as humans losing their use of vestigial organs, such as the appendix, wisdom teeth, and tailbone. We do not believe that humans evolved from monkeys, which would be macroevolution.

Wait... So if he is stating that we did evolve then why do we have intellect beyond any other animal? In addition doesn't the bible write that each creature came from it's own kind -stating that a frog did not become a dog. But to the contrary there is a gene that was found in humans that crosses and is said to be the reason why humans have 2% difference than monkeys.

Remember when the church insisted that the world was flat? Remember when the church insisted that the earth was the center of the UNIVERSE? Remember the church insisting that evolution was against God?

St John Chrysostom said that anyone who does not believe God created all things is a mental defective. There are severeal good books, Genesis, Creation, and Early Man by Fr Seraphim Rose. Hidden History of the Human race by Richard Thompson. Evoluton is in direct conflict with Orthodox theology, it says death brought man into this world where as the scriptures say man brought death into the world. This is just another of the devils delusions meant for man exalt himself above God. Notice many evolutionists are atheists, it erodes faith in a weak man.

In my opinion theology must always take primacy over scientific philosophy for the Christian.

Science is never conducted in a vacuum and the scientist, when dealing with matters of scientific faith (and much science requires faith) cannot answer the questions which theology does, and when science believes it can then it becomes a false religion.

Macro-evolution is a matter of scientific faith therefore it is properly liable to criticism by theology. To say that these two domains are separate is itself a theological point of view and not necessarily Orthodox. The issue of macro-evolution, as an example, tends to deny the reality of Adam and Eve as the progenitors of the human race, and therefore tends to attempt to demolish the foundation of our Christian Faith. Yet macro-evolution cannot be scientifically proved. It requires faith. It requires theological presuppositions which are usually not Orthodox at all.

Believing in macro-evolution, do you believe that Adam and Eve are the progenitors of our humanity and were two historical human beings?

I am not speaking for the Church of course, but as someone who has spent many decades considering theological matters.

I suppose my main objection is when the historical reality of Adam and Eve are put in doubt.

I would also say that it is impossible for science to disprove that God created the universe some 10-15,000 years ago, since clearly the universe would have to have been created with an apparent history. It is impossible to create a river valley, for instance, without it appearing to have a several thousand year history of erosion. The light from distance galaxies would also have been created, galaxies themselves formed complete and mature as if they had been turning for millions of years. This is alll a necessary fact of any creation - it is impossible to create the universe ex-nihilo without it having an apparent history. Even the creation of a mature tree in the Garden of Eden requires that the tree have an apparent history. If a tree had been cut down it would have had tens of tree rings, each one describing an apparent year of growth that was apparently real, necessary for the creation of the tree, and yet did not occur. Science cannot disprove this.

What is apparent to us has a history of millenia, what is the objective reality from God's perspective occurred 10-15,000 years ago.

i think it's possible to believe in the Christian concept of adam and eve sinning and to trust in Jesus Christ for salvation and to believe in evolution to some extent.the problem is, there are many evolution theories, and although most of them are linked to an atheist standpoint, it is not necessary to be an atheist to believe in evolution.having said that, most people who say 'i believe in evolution' haven't investigated the theory (theories) very thoroughly and don't realise that the theory of evolution started as an atheistic concept.

it's also possible (and i think more likely) that God didn't use millions of years and thousands of extinct species to create man. together with father peter, i want to emphasize that believing that adam and eve existed is important for the understanding of the Christian faith.when i was 15 i studied evolution and creation in great detail and had many (respectful!) debates with my teacher, who had never before considered that the Bible had anything to add to the study of the origins of the universe. she went away with great food for thought, and, as i took time to study the evolution theories dilligently, i passed my exam, and we were both richer for the experience.

i think it's important to point out, that some of the creation theories promoted by various north american websites also have serious flaws (as does classical darwinian macro-evolution), so when we discuss 'evolution' and 'creation' we may need to spend a little time defining what we discuss. i can see why some Christians can be put off creation theories, especially in the light of some churches historically having an anti-scientific perspective.

as a scientist, i believe it is not dangerous to mix science and religion. as Christians and scientists/health workers/schoolchildren learning biology, we actually have a responsibility to share our faith in a way that makes sense. and if our faith says 'God made the world, well, then maybe He didn't', it's not surprising people start to question whether or not Christianity makes sense or should be left for a few religious 'nuts' to enjoy. in my own experience, every time i learn something more about the workings of the human body i am filled with wonder at the intricate beauty of God's creation, and find it draws me closer to God.

i think we should think about all these issues very carefully and ask God for guidance, remebering that God is not someone who only wants to dwell in us when we take communion on a sunday, but is also with us every day, 'even to the end of the world'. it matters what we discus with our colleagues about this, and, as Christians, we should explain that indeed God did create us for a relationship with Him, and we do need to trust in the salvation that can only come through Jesus in order to be close to God. whether He did this in 10,000 years or 10,000,000 years is open to debate, but we did not arrive here by chance, and so it is not just a matter of chance where we go from here.

may He guide our study and our thoughts and our prayers, to God be the glory for ever and ever.

I suppose my main objection is when the historical reality of Adam and Eve are put in doubt.

Yeah, that's my main problem as well...

Actually, I'd say it's fundamentalism. The Bible should be taken literally in the sense that the truest meaning of what we read should be taken literally. The author of Genesis didn't intend to determine science. His point was different. The question is... what did he really mean to teach (acting under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit)? It was concerning God and what His plan was, and was expressed through the scientific knowledge of his era. That's why I don't think it's good to look at Genesis as a science book... our origins is up for science to discover.

But if this world was created through an evolutionary process, then God was the author of it. Of course, the Bible has no errors in it, since God is the author.

Believing in macro-evolution, do you believe that Adam and Eve are the progenitors of our humanity and were two historical human beings?

I would... say so, yeah (since the Genealogy of Jesus goes back to Adam).

I would also say that it is impossible for science to disprove that God created the universe some 10-15,000 years ago, since clearly the universe would have to have been created with an apparent history.

You're right... but what science is doing is simply describing the apparent history. I mean, I believe successful operations have been carried out through divine intervention. But is this really necessary to be learned in medical school? Obviously no.

i want to emphasize that believing that adam and eve existed is important for the understanding of the Christian faith.

IMO, if someone believes in anything that contradicts the Nicene Creed, then the person's not following true Christian faith.

I used to think like you do sodr2, till I discovered that regardless what science would come up with it does not fit well with man's origins that God the Creator of all the universe taught us in Genesis, in the Gospels and in the epistles - He created all things from a to z, what we can see and what we can't see.

I am a M.B. & B.Ch. I believe that science is still way short of the notion of what's scientifically termed 'the metaphysical', i.e. this means in part the spiritual. I believe that the science of evolution (classic or neo-) is false/wrong science - though I can still study, understand and take tests for ANY theory you like: it does not imply that I may take it for granted especially if NOT proven.

The sudden appearance of Adam and Eve, the first man and woman at the same timing and imperatively in the same place approximately 7000 years ago (+ or - whatever) implies a special creation event. This is incompatible with any evolution theory.

The second point I'd like to emphasize is that God does not deceive us but false science may. The wisdom and power of God are unlimited, but science is naturally and inherently limited. So now who would you believe is more to consider as the correct choice, in other words I came to understand that whenever science conflicts with what the Lord clearly teach us (esp. in great detail like in Genesis) that this very part of science is drifting away from Truth.

God inspired all Scripture not to be useful to the ancestors alone but to all humans in all eras. He is the One who was there and will be for ever and ever. The word of God is forever alive and perpetually effective.

Romans 1:20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Colossians 1:16For by Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by Him and for Him.

What are these invisible things St Paul refers to? As a start, we may think of what we cannot see with our bare naked eyes, then elaborate piece by piece..

The second point I'd like to emphasize is that God does not deceive us but false science may.

1) If something is false science, then it is deceitful; 2) Misinterpreting the scriptures will deceive you.

So now who would you believe is more to consider as the correct choice, in other words I came to understand that whenever science conflicts with what the Lord clearly teach us

Our Lord's intention was to teach us what is spiritual, not science. You shouldn't reading Genesis as a science book and forget the deeper question of what the author really meant to teach. Would the author of Genesis, ch1 have insisted that God created within one week, and rested on the Sabbath had he known what we all know now of the ages involved in the creation of the universe? Of course not. His point is different, and the point of biblical exegesis is to figure out the real meaning inspired author, and not forgetting the Church's teaching on the meaning of the Scriptures.